At 3:35 PM +0000 10/27/01, Mark Wilson wrote:
>Iver:
>
>-----
>>1 Cor 10:10 KAI APWLONTO hUPO TOU OLOUQREUTOU
>>and they were destroyed/killed by the destroyer
>>
>>APOLONTO is parsed as aorist middle, because it is middle in form, even
>>though it may be middle or passive in sense. (Perish or be killed).
>>APOLLUNTO is parsed as imperfective passive. One can argue that this
>>parsing
>>is based on syntax in that it is possible to supply an agent to a passive
>>form but not to a middle form.
>-----
>
>You say here at the end, I think, that an agent can not be
>supplied to a middle, but you indicate the hUPO is retained
>in 1 Cor 10.10, which seems to be a Middle with supplied agent.
>
>The sense I get from this verse is
>
>they got themselves killed (middle) by the destroyer (agent).
>
>As if the Middle states that the experiencers have only themselves
>to blame for a destroyer/agent killing them. Based on their own
>decisions, they must bear responsibility to what happened to them.
>(I guess the passive in 10:9 would not stress the experiencers
>own actions that brought about the effect.)

Just a quick note. As Iver noted, there is no passive (-QH-) paradigm for
this verb. And in conventional/traditional pedagogy, we DON'T call APWLONTO
a 3d pl. aor. indicative passive. Nevertheless, the fact that an agent is
indicated by the hUPO phrase clearly indicates that the semantic value of
APWLONTO is passive.

For my part, I think this beautifully illustrates the proposition I've been
arguing: that the MAI/SAI/TAI morphological paradigm is essentially
"middle" (today call it "subject-focused") and that this paradigm LENDS
itself to expressing a passive notion when there's a clear indication of an
external agent or instrument/cause. Compare the example I have used of an
active verb "undergoing" the same fate: TAUTA EPAQON AUTOS hUPO TWN EMWN
ECQRWN = This is what I myself suffered at the hands of my enemies" = "I
myself was thus abused by my enemies" = "This is what my enemies did to my
very self."
--